User talk:GoodDay

This editor is a WikiGnome. This user is a participant in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 2 months and 4 days.

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.

Awards

I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records
Gotta sign-in to it now, which I'm not.

My Arbcom Case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Archives

Aug–Sept 2007 Sept 2007–Feb 2008 Feb–Apr 2008 Apr–Jul 2008 Jul–Oct 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan–Feb 2009 Feb–Mar 2009 Mar–May 2009 May–Jun 2009 Jun–Jul 2009 Jul–Sept 2009 Sept–Oct 2009 Oct–Nov 2009 Nov–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jan 2010 Jan–Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Feb–Apr 2010 Apr–Jun 2010 Jun–Oct 2010 Oct–Nov 2010 Nov 2010–Jan 2011 Jan–Feb 2011 Feb 2011 Feb–Mar 2011 Mar–Apr 2011 Apr–May 2011 May–Nov 2011 Nov 2011–Feb 2012 Feb–May 2012 May–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Feb 2013 Feb 2013–May 2014 May 2014–Jun 2015 Jun 2015–Feb 2016 Feb–Jul 2016 Jul 2016–Jan 2017 Jan 2017–Jan 2018 Jan 2018–Feb 2019 Feb 2019–Jul 2020 Jul 2020–Aug 2021 Aug–Dec 2021 Dec 2021–Jul 2022 Jul 2022–Jan 2023 Jan–Dec 2023 Dec 2023–Feb 2024 Feb 2024–present

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 3 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Estonia short description

Hi GoodDay, time to start a discussion about what the short description should be. It's seemingly turned into an edit war about a contentious topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: What's happening? I thought I solved the problem. I've got Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania in sync. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you done that a few times now? My point was that if it's changed from now there needs to be discussion not reversion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If required. Where should such a discussion occur? GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's probably a matter of doing it on an article talk page (likely Estonia's since that's where the issue is) and then trying to port that across to the other articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Baltics WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an editor has now reverted (no kidding) at Lithuania. -- GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: - There seems little interest among the editors I've pinged at a discussion I set up. I wonder if perhaps an RFC there, would be best? Outsiders may help end the inconsitencies. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. Depends if you think it's worth it or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. I actually thought an RFC on this matter would solve disputes. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Glebushko0703 and Mathglot: I'm trying to solve this "short description" dispute, with the Baltic states. If you're both that peeved about the RFC's options or where the RFC is located, etc? than seek an administrator to shut it down. Then start you own RFC, wherever you both wish. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Good Day, and thanks for the message; I can see that you are trying. Btw, I am not peeved at all. I merely pointed out the requirements of WP:RFCNEUTRAL as I see it that were not observed, and the likely effects on the Rfc. I am happy to leave a closure request up to you (if you are in favor) or to any uninvolved user who wishes to request closure, and/or start a new rfc; and/or just let it run and see what happens. I have no appetite for continued involvement, and I just want to get on with other things.

One tip going forward, though: if you are thinking about starting an Rfc and you are not 100% sure about the best way to word the Rfc question, it is perfectly okay, even advisable, to start a discussion about how to word the question for the upcoming Rfc. I just did this recently and got a ton of good responses, and the result was that the Rfc, when it was finally posted, was much the better for it. You could do the same thing. Just entitle your discussion something like, ==How should I word a neutral question for an upcoming rfc on Estonia?== (or whatever the topic happens to be). Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not urgent, I suggest we wait for it to finish. If the outcome will be insufficient, we have enough users and reasons to make an appeal anyway. Gigman (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You both can decide on what to do, next. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting sounds fine. As far as what's next, you'll have to do it without me; I'm out. Best, Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that some participators mistook short description for lead section early on, this has basically doomed the consensus. Also it's likely that some predisposed group of users has mass voted, since because you hosted the RFC in Estonia talk page, the invitation to discussion was also brought up on WP:ESTONIA.

Let me put it this way: If you truly want to get a consensus about the real origin of Tesla, you shouldn't host the RFC on Serbia or Croatia talk pages. Tesla talk page will make much more sense and the opinions will be more diverse. Gigman (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, the way you want. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: fwiw, I was considering 'reverting' (again) the edit version made at Kaja Kallas (per WP:BRD & WP:ONUS) before you placed the consensus provision. But, I didn't want an edit war to erupt. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RFC, Estonia, German Reich, etc

Hi GoodDay, I wasn't sure about your recent comment over at the MOS, and didn't want to clutter that up further. I missed the RFC so didn't participate in it. I think my comments are consistent with the RFC? Were you saying you didn't think I was? My personal view is that we have to go with what was used at the time, which is what I understood option A in the RFC said? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: My post was about the OP's opening of the RFC. I suspect the OP is likely a sock. I wasn't questioning your position. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

How do you cope with the inconsistency between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the articles about his siblings? Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna:, infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the full name in the lead sentence instead of just middle names. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened it. By all means, make any tweaks required. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is something

This is a curious piece. "We are witnessing a pattern where Estonians who defend the facts and stand for historical truth are systematically blocked. Administrators who should be guarding neutrality swallow the bait of the attackers: those who restore references to the occupation or correct false claims are labeled as 'impressors of the Estonian narrative' or 'manipulators of facts.'" I can't wait for more pieces spinning what happened to the sockpuppets. Mellk (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: Sad, very sad. Looks like WP:RGW, WP:NOTADVOCACY are certainly going to get & are getting breached. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like the Estonian government will investigate this "information war".[1] All it took was one RfC that nobody properly challenged and a sock to threaten consequences.

"'Unfortunately, if you look at who took part in that vote, there were no identifiable Estonian usernames. There was someone from Canada, someone from Yemen,' Treufeldt said. In other words, according to him, the decision was made by users who are not familiar with the history of the Baltic states or the Soviet Union."[2] Mellk (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A small group of editors (legit & socks) having a tantrum, won't succeed in twisting the arm of the Wiki-community. PS - Strange, that Latvian & Lithuanian editors aren't complainly (yet). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so. Mellk (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really spend 21 hours and 40 minutes doing that? How do they even calculate it? I think it's too long even if summarized. Gigman (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my contributions - no I didn't. Nowhere near 21 hours even if you count all my edits on infoboxes, even in total. Gigman (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mom look, I'm famous Gigman (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After more than 20-years on this project? Nothing surprises me. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We just have more Estonians active in Wikipedia than Latvians or Lithuanians, but it seems interesting that you have not noticed all the Latvians and Lithuanians complaining about that biased writing. I have seen them... so are you sure you are able to distinguish Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians? And if not, then why exactly are you active on that topic you know so little about?

Still, I have to admit that this sockowner made a total mess that makes it harder to clean this up. I still like to know why there is a sole focus on the sock part, and not on the thing that started all of it. Ivo (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RGW, WP:AGENDA etc, doesn't impress me. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The troll in question has been banned for almost three years now and they have been socking for much longer, so I am not sure how the RfC "started all of it". Their edits were reverted because this is ban evasion. No one formally challenged the closure, therefore the consensus is to include the Soviet Union in the infobox and Glebushko0703's edits follow this consensus. The 'news' articles mentioned above instead portray a falsified version of events about heroic Estonian defenders of the truth getting blocked for no good reason. Consensus can change but this won't work with canvassing efforts or meatpuppets. Mellk (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think all those measures actually made it harder for them to change the consensus, if not impossible.

It's not just an inside Wiki affrair anymore, I don't think wider public will support the efforts of their side after what some of them have been doing or saying. Be that because of their battleground mentality or for the sake of simple trolling. Gigman (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're on Estonian yellow press

Read this. "There was someone from Canada" - I think this reffers to you and the Canadian flag on your user page. Unfortunately I don't get a lot of credit or reference despite starting all of this.

That Mr. Ronald Liive seems like a very active journalist, should we create a Wiki page about him? Gigman (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Just a journalist who wants attention for his columns, etc. The more viewership or readership you get? the more succesful you'll be in your craft. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I think he won't oppose the creation of his own article on Wikipedia, but over there he will be listed as born in Estonian SSR unfortunately. Gigman (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that your every-day Estonian, isn't concerned about Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that is the Estonian Public Broadcasting (i.e, the Estonian version of the BBC). Ivo (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News media, seeking attention. Big surprise. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is not particularly famous for their great reputation among the English public, I hope that's the case with this Estonian news agency as well. Gigman (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January music

story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda Arendt & a Happy 2026 to you. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and Mozart music for today's birthday, same as 10 years ago! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay

I came across this page. I'm happy to see that you're still around on Wikipedia. I drop in myself once in a while. See ya Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jeanne boleyn:. Yep, I'm still around. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hello @Beland:, thanks for your responses. Will be interesting to see the RFC results at Kaja Kallas, in a month's time. Don't worry, I'm cool :) GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bios

@Jähmefyysikko and Rsjaffe: I've undone my parenthesis reverts on those two bios-in-question, after having checked the overall history. Please review. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jähmefyysikko: I know we've kinda butted heads, in the last few days. But, I do thank you for not throwing barbs at me (like Russian propogandist, etc). We can agree, such mud slinging doesn't add anything to content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree on keeping it polite, and I am glad that the forum-shopping issue turned out to be a misunderstanding. No hard feelings. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple discussions on the same topic

If you feel that multiple talk pages are relevant to a discussion, it's better to have the discussion in one place, and just drop a note linking to that discussion from the other pages. If there are multiple discussions, editors on one page either won't see and respond to the arguments raised on other pages, or they will raise and respond to the same arguments multiple times, which is a very inefficient use of volunteer time. If a discussion is already rolling, it's best to link to it rather than moving it, unless the participants agree that it's in the wrong place. If moving, it's important to put a link from the old discussion to the new one, so interested editors can follow along, and it doesn't give the impression that you're trying to exclude people from the conversation or forum shop. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adopting your three proposed options to the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: The MOS:LINK wasn't an RFC, but merely seeking clarificton on a matter. I could've mentioned the United States or Yugoslavia, no differance. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and because there was an existing discussion underway, it would have been better to write a note like "There is a discussion about how to apply MOS:GEOLINK to Baltic states under Soviet occupation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Baltic birth places and linking. Interested editors are invited to participate there." or "Clarification from editors here would be helpful." rather than to start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question. Alternatively, if you wanted to pursue an amendment to MOS:GEOLINK on its talk page and move the discussion there, you could have put a note on the first discussion saying something like "I think we need to amend MOS:GEOLINK so I've started a discussion at (section link)." Presumably then the first discussion would be closed or come to a natural end.

It would also be helpful to put the topic of the section in the section title, rather than a generic title like "A question", so interested editors can find it and uninterested editors can more quickly skip it. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add a third note (the MOS:GEOLINK discussin)? I could do that. Also I've informed the administrator that I'm alright with linkage discussion being added to the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your comment. All the notes I proposed making were between the first two discussion and not the RFC. There is not point in adding them now, because either you started a discussion instead of doing so, or I added a note. I already added a link from the RFC to the second discussion, which was the only of the two on the same topic still open. -- Beland (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to show me a visial 'here', on what you want. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for anything with regard to current conversations. I'm simply asking you not to create multiple discussions on the same topic in the future. -- Beland (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I don't think opening up another discussoin anywhere about the general topic, will be required. Name, links, footnotes, appears to cover it all. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not, but I am talking about any discussion you might be involved with in the future, on any topic. -- Beland (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what the topic is, editors can work out content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but does not seem relevant. Do you understand what I am asking you to do and why? -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to never again post on any talkpages, accept my own. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you come to that conclusion from what I've written? -- Beland (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify what you're asking of me, in few words, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I'm simply asking you not to create multiple discussions on the same topic in the future. How do you get "never again post on any talk pages" from that? -- Beland (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of WP:CENT. Very well, stick to 'one' discussion in 'one' place. If the content dispute is "Red or Blue?", don't have it across more than one place, concurrently. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, except for your mention of WP:CENT. {{Centralized discussion}} is a template meant to draw attention to the most important discussions. Since it appears you are unfamiliar with the social conventions around when starting a new discussion is appropriate, I would recommend asking someone before using that. -- Beland (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Ps - I thank you for not throwing personal attacks at me, which I've faced these last few days. Aspersions & labels never add anything to content disputes. They're basically noise & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay, rather than pasting a notice on you, out of respect because you are a very experienced editor and I would assume obviously are aware of WP:CTOPS, you are aware that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic, right? TylerBurden (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Among other topic areas, yes it's under CTOP. PS - I appreciate that you've not taken the personal attacks route. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful comments

Hi, comments like "To footnote or not to footnote." and "Don't stress over the 'what ifs'." are not helpful and may be perceived as annoying. The first was posted in a conversation about linking (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Baltic birth places and linking), and so seems off topic. Even if it were on topic, it doesn't advance the conversation in any way, as it's not asking a question, making a request, making a proposal, or making an argument. It seems to be just noise, which is not appropriate on pages which are meant to be a place for volunteers to coordinate getting work done.

The second comment is telling another editor how to feel, which is general inappropriate. It is also not advancing the coordination of volunteer work in a useful way. If you wish to have a harmonious experience working with other editors, I would recommend considering the purpose of your comment more carefully before making them. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

@Mellk:, I too am concerned abut a certain post at Estonian Wikipedia. But, I'll leave it to you, if you think it should be brought to uninvolved administrators' attention at WP:AN or wherever. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we shall wait to see whether a wave of editors from Estonian Wikipedia appears to vote. In any case, the editor is supposed to be warned first before this is escalated to WP:AN, I think, and this is not as quite an egregious violation. Probably it will be a bigger issue if there is a canvassing campaign on social media again. Mellk (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wish these articles weren't behind a paywall.[3] Mr. Liive here is still referring to it as an 'information war'. Perhaps he will write an article about the current RfC? Although from what I've read so far, he has no understanding of how Wikipedia works. Mellk (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, there ya go. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]